This is probably a good idea, although anyone who is even slightly skeptical of government might worry about empowering politicians to try to pick winners when it comes to financing research and innovation.

Smart economists (clearly a group to which Lomborg has no affiliation) tend to agree that the best way to address climate change is to ask the market to do it. You put a price on carbon - a price that begins to reflect the unfunded damage that CO2 (and other fossil fuel pollutants) do to the atmosphere - and let entrepreneurs act on that price signal and seek the most efficient solutions.

But Lomborg is suddenly a socialist - suddenly an advocate for direct government control and investment. Fair enough: an argument can certainly be made that government should be supporting alternative energy research. Where, though, should those governments get the money? Should they take it from the foreign aid programs that Lomborg sometimes claims to defend? I think not. Should they take it from the beleaguered taxpayer whom Lomborg presumes to champion in this latest piece? He says no.

So, sure, take Lomborg’s advice. Spend $100 billion on renewable energy research - and fund the investment with an extremely small carbon tax. It would hardly be noticed at the pump and, according to Lomborg (admittedly, not really a reliable source), it might actually start moving us in the right direction.

Previous Comments

Wasn’t Lomborg just recently saying climate change was too expensive to fix, at least when compared to the other pressing issues facing mankind, like starvation, AIDS, scarcity of clean drinking water, etc.?

It’s really too bad his credibility is so shot that when he does say something constructive, no one wants to support it. Perhaps it’s a new tactic: carefully cultivate a persona that no one can trust, then suggest something positive and progressive, then when no one signs on (because you’re untrustworthy), point out how hypocritical they are! It’s brilliant! :-(

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.